Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Sterling Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Status	Closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Misou (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	--Leonmon 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	2 parties left the mediation. Recommend moving to a more binding forum.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Sterling Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Sterling Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)]]

User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Misou, User:Stan_En, User:AndroidCat, User:GoodDamon.

Editors have been having content disputes regarding WP:NPOV that are not being fully resolved.--Fahrenheit451 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reach a consensus about what constitutes NPOV on this article and the article is edited accordingly, thus resolving the contention.--Fahrenheit451 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to take this case for mediation. I have read the article once and I will re-read it thoroughly another 3-5 times to make sure that I understand. I have a couple of requests:

Request 1: Please refrain from any non-minor edits to the article during mediation. This will help eliminate any of my potential confusion. I will do my best to mediate this dispute quickly.

Request 2: I would like a commitment from each participating party (including User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Misou, User:Stan_En, User:AndroidCat, User:GoodDamon) that you will commit to follow WP:CIV during the entire dispute resolution.

Request 3: All parties -- Please make your comments in the 'Discussion' section of the dispute page.

I look forward to a swift resolution of this matter.

Regards, --Leonmon 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article several times and am now quite familiar with it. I have several thoughts regarding how this article could be improved in light of WP:NPOV. I would, however, like all parties in this dispute to please specifically outline what you believe the problem is and how it should be resolved. Since this is a shorter article, please be as specific as you believe necessary in your references to the article. I look forward to your responses.

--Leonmon 15:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of User:Fahrenheit451, I have notified parties as indicated by User:Fahrenheit451.

--Leonmon 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your comments. I have been reviewing the article (as well as all of the prior edits to the article) in light of these comments -- specifically looking at potential violations of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I will make another post with questions and comments within the next couple days. (I apologize for the delay -- I've been spending most of my time moving my office across town. We just finished most of it Friday.) Thanks for your patience.

--Leonmon (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening. I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the edits (and unedits) to this article. I indicated that I would need a couple of days in order to be ready to proceed.

I come back and this page has simply become another venue for parties to argue, insult and intimidate each other about this article. This venue is NOT a venue for trying to make others look bad, to intimidate others, or simply to extend the nastiness that has been going on regarding this article.

It has taken me quite some time to get to a point regarding this article that I can at least start a process. User: Fahrenheit451 has already decided that all attempts at mediation are fruitless during the few days that I needed in order to become well-versed in this entire affair.

Is mediation truly fruitless? I made a simple request -- I asked for a committment from each participating party to agree to adhere to WP:CIV. I have NOT received that committment from any party.

Are the parties truly interested in participating in the crafting of a solution regarding this article? If so, then I am prepared to outline my proposal for proceeding.

I renew my request for a committment from each party to strictly adhere to not only WP:CIV but also WP:AGF. In addition, all future comments on this page should ONLY be directed to me as the mediator. I have settled complex issues in the past and I am confident that we can arrive at a solution in this matter -- it takes time and patience.

I look forward to your responses. Regards,

--Leonmon (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you will notice, I have archived all of the prior discussion, arguing, bickering, etc. that was previously on this page. Going forward, this project page will be strictly preserved for discussions and questions between involved parties and the mediator. (As mediator, I will initiate all discussions on this page.) If you wish to have side discussions with other parties, then please do so on the discussion page.

I have requested that all parties commit to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF. WP:NPA is in effect and will be enforced.

I have received committments from User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Stan En, and User:Misou to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I await responses from User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat.

I assure all parties that the article as well as most (if not all) comments, edits, and discussions have been reviewed at least once by me and will probably be reviewed again. As much as I appreciate your desire to assist me in this process, please refrain from making suggestions regarding how I should and should not proceed and please allow me to determine what is important and what is less important.

Although I am not an unexperienced mediator, I am still a new WIKImediator and I will be enlisting the assistance of User:SebastianHelm when jumping through any WIKIhoops as well as with any clarifications of WIKIpolicies.

That being said -- I am very confident that we can arrive at a solution that is agreeable to all parties involved.

Happy Holidays to everyone.

--Leonmon (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received commitments from 4 out of 6 paticipants.

Comment 101: Going forward, all of my questions and request for responses will be labeled with a specific number. For the sake of organization, please reference this number in your response.

Comment 102: Although User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat have not responded with a commitment to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF, we will begin shortly and include User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat when they respond. Please let me know if you have an objection.

Comment 103: Please respond to my questions and comments in the discussion section below specifically labeled for you.

Question 104: (To each party) I would like each party to please comment on the article only as it currently exists. In your opinion, is the material factually accurate? Is it in harmony with WP:NPOV?

Question 105: (To each party) Please comment regarding what you think should be added to (ior changed in) this article. Please reference prior edits and/or provide the exact text of what should be included. Please comment briefly on why this should be included.

Thanks for your indulgence. These requests may seem a bit cumbersome but I assure you they will be very useful to arriving at an agreeable solution.

--Leonmon (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given considerable thought to this article over the past few days and I would like to share a few more of my questions and comments with all parties.

Question 106: The first paragraph of the article (WP:LEAD) is concise and to the point. I believe that the reference to "L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology" is appropriate. In my visit to Sterling's website, I was quickly able to ascertain the accuracy of the lead paragraph. Each party should acknowledge whether this WP:LEAD paragraph is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.

Question 107: I'm concerned about the paragraph beginning with "Legally..." in the "Company" section. These two sentences regarding the dba and business registration do nothing to benefit the non-bias reader. Eliminating these two sentences will not damage or impair the article. Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.

Question 108a: The "Services" section is quite stale and does very little to assist the non-bias reader. My first suggestion is to remove the phrase "non-religious" in its entirety. I believe that if the non-bias reader is interested in determining whether or not the training is religious in nature, the non-bias reader will pursue further information. Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.

Question 108b My second suggestion regarding the "Services" section is regarding the description of services provided. In one of the prior edits, I came across a description of the services rendered at Sterling. This description, with some adjustments by me, is a reasonable description of the services provided.

These techniques have been successfully used by leading corporations and government agencies to help improve training, operations and overall efficiencies. (Citation is Government Technology Magazine article: Training in a Distributed World)

This section would be added to the "Services" section and would added to the sentence immediately following "...community at large." Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.

Question 109: Paragraphs 2 and 3 ("Services" and "Company") should either be merged or their locations should be swapped. Either way, this article will read better with this change. Each party should indicate their preference: Merge sections or swap sections. If you believe that no change should be made, please provide your reasoning.

Comment 110: I'm working on the "Criticisms" section and I hope to provide suggestions in the next couple of days.

I appreciate your responses.

--Leonmon (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of all parties, it appears that the requestor of this mediation, User:Fahrenheit451, now declines to continue in this mediation.

Apparently User:Fahrenheit451 has an objection to me as the mediator but is not willing to articulate this objection. I would appreciate specific objections to me as the mediator.

To those parties who are truly interested in working towards a reasonable solution, I applaud you.

--Leonmon (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonmon, I articulated my objections by email and on the respective discussion pages to both you and Sebastian. In one case, you removed my comments from your talk page. So, you are being downright dishonest with your statement. --Fahrenheit451 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that informal mediation can not be effective regarding this article. The disagreements between parties have been going on so long, and are so extensive and deep that not only do parties have difficulty working with one another, they have chosen not to work with an outside third-party.

I will close this mediation with a couple final comments. I am thoroughly unimpressed with the parties in this dispute. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which demands that articles be complete, accurate, factual, and NPOV. I would hope that ALL parties will someday set their differences aside, assume good faith in other parties, and come together to create an article that will benefit Wikipedia.

I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that this dispute move to a binding arbitration forum so that this issue can be resolved. I will insure that all of my notes, research, and comments are provided to any future arbitrator to help expedite this process and arrive at a solution.

--Leonmon (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonmon, clearly you abandoned this mediation for several days after it began, allowing one of the participants to indulge in WP:CIVIL violations which tainted the mediation at the outset. I am thoroughly unimpressed with your attempt to mediate this article dispute.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Fahrenheit451 -- I think a response to you specifically is in order. I have been a licensed arbitrator and mediator for 19 years. I have had many cases which are much more difficult than Sterling and some much easier. I have always been successful with cases where all parties are willing to cooperate with a third-party mediator in the interest of the greater good.

Never in my history have I started any mediation process without spending at least 3-5 days reviewing the case in order to become familiar and well-versed with the issues at hand. I took this case and did all of the appropriate review and preparation (I have about 10 pages of notes and research). Yes it took me several days to prepare but I indicated that there would be some delay. (I also indicated that I was in the middle of an office move which would contribute to the delay.)

I appreciate your desire to seek an end to this dispute. You requested mediation but I think you may have instead been looking for a policeman to 'break up the fight.' In my opinion, those who request mediation should at least be willing to call for a ceasefire while a third-party mediator gets up to speed on an issue. Comments made by you as well as other parties during my preparation did not taint the mediation -- they were merely continuations of the vitriol that has been going on with this issue for far too long. I would hope that you or any other of the parties will allow any future arbitrator/mediator a reasonable amount of time to prepare.

You indicated that you were "unimpressed" with my attempts to mediate this article. I believe you would have been impressed or at least satisfied with my attempt to mediate this dispute if you had merely read my comments & questions. You chose not to respond.

Regards,

--Leonmon (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonmon, following acceptance of this case, you required prompting to notify the parties of the mediation. Also, your above statement implies that calling for a ceasefire is the role of the originator. You abandoned the case and didn't make any effort to mediate the discussion, and then following unmediated noisy discussion, you chastised the parties. Following your chastisement, the parties were less responsive, which upset you and resulted in your initial closing statement. None of this appears to be consistent with your claimed experience. Addhoc (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc, you know very well that MedCab is informal, and that we have no fixed requirement to notify the parties of the mediation. In fact, as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators clearly states, we already have the Case template template for that exactly purpose. While many mediators choose to notify parties in addition to the template, it is clearly inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. Moreover, the term “abandoned” is inappropriate and unwarranted. As MedCab coordinator, it is your task to assist mediators, especially new ones. I think you have been abandoning your duty and I will have to bring this up on WT:MEDCAB, where I will explain in detail why your reaction is inappropriate and unwarranted. — Sebastian 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm, Addhoc's comments are spot-on correct. His response is very appropriate and most warranted.--Fahrenheit451 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike arbitration, a request for mediation (either formal or informal) is not made by a mediator but instead is made by a particular party to the dispute. The originating party requesting mediation generally does not even approach a mediator (and incur the related expenses) until other parties have agreed to mediation (as well as cost). It is not common for a mediator to be retained and then be asked to bring parties to the table. (Warring parties generally won't even agree to mediation in the first place. They are much more often forced to arbitration whether by an arbitrator or a judge!)

Regarding ceasefires, I was unfortunately not as clear as I intended to be. Calling for a ceasefire in a mediation (not an arbitration) IS the role of the originating party before any third-party mediator has been retained, has reviewed a dispute and is ready to proceed.

The lines between mediation and arbitration here in the WIKIworld are a little different than is custom. I mistakenly assumed that mediations here would be very similar to mediations that I have conducted in the past. This notion was furthered by the very positive Crown Heights Riot Mediation that I've been working on for the past month.

Addhoc, I make three commitments to you, Sebastian, and MedCab in general --

1. In the future as mediations are initiated, I will presume that parties may or may not agree to participate in mediation;

2. I will entreat the attendance of parties (Normally, in binding arbitations, I require attendance); and

3. I will limit my research on the case until initial pleadings have been completed by all (or at least most) parties.

I would appreciate any assistance you are willing to offer. I'm concerned that I've offended you in some way. If I have offended you, I apologize -- I never intended to offend you at all.

Regards,

--Leonmon (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, could I offer the following advice:

• firstly, in Wikipedia, at least, it's the role of the mediator to call for a truce and not the role of the originator,
• secondly, avoid legalese; invite is preferable to entreat, and statement is better than pleadings,
• thirdly, actively mediate the discussion between the parties.

Addhoc (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc, again: MedCab is informal, and there is no fixed role of a mediator. While mediators often do call for a truce, it is completely inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. — Sebastian 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian, in this case not attending to the mediation and telling the offending user to knock off the repeated incivility disrupted the mediation process. Addhoc is correct in his/her assessment.--Fahrenheit451 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Leonmon (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/archive 1

Thanks for looking and thinking. Looks pretty grim here. I'll be around in the next days and give you my view. Misou (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel not very comfortable with this situation now. I left mediation because I saw no other solution. I commited to follow WP:AGF just a few hours before I decided to leave. The reason was simply that I found shortly after my commitment evidence wich made it impossible for me to assume good faith with every editor. Presenting the evidence would have been a further disruption and in mind that I just promised not to accuse any participating party during the time of mediation I decided to leave. It had nothing to do with Leonmen and I feel sorry because he did spend a lot of time to prepare this mediation. Right now I would not like to move to a more binding forum unless my issues with this editor/s is/are resolved or may be resolved there. However , mediation isn't the place for such things anyway. Of course all the other parties can choose to move on to a more binding forum but I would recommend to do nothing in the hope it will work without mediation this time. Mediation is over since 24 hours and no new edit war erupted. Thats pretty good. ;) Maybe it is settled already :) but I'm probably too optimistic. -- Stan _talk 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of bonked at the moment, so sorry for the lateness of my response. I always try to abide by WP:CIV and WP:AGF, so I have no problem whatsoever with agreeing to do so. --GoodDamon 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]